Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Students' views of the nature of science: A critical review of research

Deng, Feng, Chen, Der‐Thanq, Tsai, Chin‐Chung, Chai, Ching Sing·2011·Science Education

Abstract

This review examines 105 empirical studies that investigate students' views of the nature of science (VNOS), effects of curricular interventions on changing students' VNOS, and relations between VNOS and demographics, majors, and learning of science. The reviewed studies can be categorized into three theoretical frameworks: the unidimension, the multidimension, and the argumentative resource frameworks. Each framework is reviewed first with regard to its theoretical foundation, methods of data collection and analysis, and the respective findings. This is followed by a critical discussion on the methodological issues and the strengths and limitations of the framework. Potential directions regarding theoretical framework, methodology, and pedagogy are suggested in the future directions section. For example, this review proposes the shift to argumentative resource framework for VNOS research and a refinement for judging the “sophistication” of student VNOS. The role of inquiry in student VNOS is also discussed. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:961–999, 2011

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.20460

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S.
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09-30
Volume
95
Issue
6
Pages
961-999
ISSN
  • 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-237X
OpenAlex
W2162751531
Cited by
301
References
2
FWCI
77.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.